Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Another reason that Babies all look a bit "less" like their alien parents might be explained Biologically: The Birth canal cannot accommodate a bunch of crags and points and horned things... Birth has got to be easy on Mom And Baby. Babies are designed to be mushy and squishy- streamlined and cartilaginous.

In Species whose Adults are Thorny, Scaly, Horned, or whose Smoothness is Compromised in some other way, the Newly birthed tend to be smooth, regardless (at least in mammalian & marsupial species- and in nurse sharks who give live births, etc). Their Morphology tends to change significantly in Adolescence, Blooming in Early Adulthood.

Even in Aliens, who are likely to be 'less compatible with Humans than a Chrysanthemum', those capable of producing Hybrids with Humanoids might be inferred to have Female organs and birth canals and development similar to humanoids.... theirs wouldn't have to accommodate all manner of Spiky things during Birth...

i'm not a Paleontologist {nor have i played one on TV}... but i think i recall that more than a few 'species' of dinosaur were crossed off the score sheet recently- when it was determined that previously identified 'Separate' species were found to be of the 'identical' species. The confusion was based on the fact that their fossils- in varying ages of maturity from neonate to juvenile thru adult- showed features that were absent in the Young, developed in the Old.

It makes sense to conserve body mass at birth, too... many 'showy' features aren't really necessary physiologically until one must attract a mate, defend one's self, etc- at a time far from birth.

i think i might have read recently that the laws regarding Infant Actors and Models had been amended... that many make-ups or effects were simply not allowed- and that one of the weird combinations that was permitted to be slathered all over them was cream cheese and jelly- presumably to duplicate childbirth. bizarre.

the theories of Parallel and Convergent Evolutions might be brought to bear here, as well~ which i think are sound. but i'm not a scientist.

i just today thought of the issue of Hybrid Vigor. i wonder if that's ever been seen in the star trek universe? The principle by which Ligers and Tions and polar/grizzlies are generally larger and more robust than their Parents?And why many mixed breed dogs are healthier than Purebred?

No, they transformed themselves into a human shape so they could operate a spaceship designed for humanoids. Spock got a telepathic impression of their true form as "immense beings" with "a hundred limbs that resemble tentacles." It was a vital story point that the Kelvans had trouble adjusting to the human forms they'd adopted, and that Kirk & crew defeated them by exploiting their unfamiliarity with human emotions and appetites.

Agree completely.

On the other hand, the Mudd's Planet androids did say that their creators from the Andromeda Galaxy were "quite humanoid." Implicitly the androids were made in those Andromedans' image. Although I prefer to think that they were more approximately humanoid and that Harry had the androids remodel their appearance to a more human one.

The race that we see in "The Chase" does not fully explain this since they, while humanoid, were not human...and their genetic sequence leads to the Romulans/Vulcans, Klingons and Cardassians as well. So why would you get more humans than anything else?

I like to use neoteny as an excuse. Lots of species' evolutionary processes tend toward neoteny -- that is, species evolving to retain formerly juvenile traits into adulthood. It's been said that humans are basically neotenous chimpanzees -- we retain the large heads, small muzzles, neuroplasticity, and so forth that chimps only have in their youth. And if you look at the various Trek-universe infants we've seen, most humanoid babies tend to look more human than their adult forms, with the more elaborate ridges and other anatomical features growing in later (which is, of course, because it wouldn't be practical or humane to subject a live infant to an arduous prosthetic makeup process -- although by "Demons"/'Terra Prime" they were able to do pointed ears with CGI). So if Trekverse humanoids tended toward neoteny in their evolution, they would often become increasingly humanlike as well.

Short answer, Humans are Horny! The human sex drive had humans proliferating like crazy...

__________________

“When all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.” -Pres. Obama
"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon." -Pres. Clinton

^Umm, I think you misunderstood the question. It wasn't about the abundance of actual Homo sapiens from Earth, but about why so many humanoid aliens happen to look just like humans or nearly so, rather than just like Klingons or just like Cardassians or what-have-you.

Is that species or cultures, though? Humans and Halkans resemble each other, but we don't know if these are two separate species or just two populations of humans. Humans and Platonians resemble each other to an equal measure, but there are key differences that might make them two distinct species. Humans and TOS Klingons look alike, too, but are definitely two separate species. And Zephram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri is explicitly human.

So, are Dopterians and Kobheerians two distinct species, or do some Kobheerians just live on a world called Dopteria (and some others on Talaria)?

Is that species or cultures, though? Humans and Halkans resemble each other, but we don't know if these are two separate species or just two populations of humans. Humans and Platonians resemble each other to an equal measure, but there are key differences that might make them two distinct species. Humans and TOS Klingons look alike, too, but are definitely two separate species. And Zephram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri is explicitly human.

So, are Dopterians and Kobheerians two distinct species, or do some Kobheerians just live on a world called Dopteria (and some others on Talaria)?

Timo Saloniemi

But that's the point, there are ALOT of species that are indistinguishable from humans. Even if you eliminate all of those with subtle differences like the Trill or Bajorans, there are species that look exactly like humans but are clearly not from Earth. For instance Lazarus, Apollo, the Fabrini, people of Beta III, Eminiar (we never see anyone from Vendikar), Capella IV, Argelius II (if not for the Empathic thing I would have written this off as an independent former Terran colony), Ekos/Zeon, Omega IV, Sigma Draconis, Sigma Iotia, Scalos, Elas, Gideon, Sarpedion etc...and that's just in TOS.

__________________Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along in the age of paranoiaGreen Day

A species indistinguishable from humans externally may be a different species. One indistinguishable by a tricorder is not. One wonders how many of those "not from Earth" humans were actually bona fide members of H.sapiens who had just ended up off-Earth for one reason or another.

In any case, we don't know if humans originated on Earth. Supposedly Earth even in Star Trek has the appropriate fossil track record - but it need not establish the birth of H.sapiens here. Might be just a case of a humanoid species or three emerging here, and then being replaced by an imported sapient species that isn't really related to the three it replaces (but the galaxy-spanning genetic commonality of "The Chase" fame throws the researchers off).

Or then there's no fossil record to speak of, and Trek paleontologists are just guessing. We do know they are saying that humans come from Earth even in the 24th century, as per VOY "Distant Origin", but that doesn't automatically make them right.

A species indistinguishable from humans externally may be a different species. One indistinguishable by a tricorder is not. One wonders how many of those "not from Earth" humans were actually bona fide members of H.sapiens who had just ended up off-Earth for one reason or another.

In any case, we don't know if humans originated on Earth. Supposedly Earth even in Star Trek has the appropriate fossil track record - but it need not establish the birth of H.sapiens here. Might be just a case of a humanoid species or three emerging here, and then being replaced by an imported sapient species that isn't really related to the three it replaces (but the galaxy-spanning genetic commonality of "The Chase" fame throws the researchers off).

Or then there's no fossil record to speak of, and Trek paleontologists are just guessing. We do know they are saying that humans come from Earth even in the 24th century, as per VOY "Distant Origin", but that doesn't automatically make them right.

Timo Saloniemi

"All Good Things" pretty much puts that to rest since the whole point of the episode was that the anti-time anomaly was large enough in the past to prevent the basic molecules of life from ever bonding on primeval earth. Thus preventing the rise of the human race.

__________________Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along in the age of paranoiaGreen Day